🚀 go-pugleaf

>[Moderator's note: Another WWW site with the draft standard is 
>http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-draft.  mha]

That URL refers to the April Working Paper -- not the latest draft.

I do not remember seeing any announcement in this forum pointing to
a newer draft, but a little digging turned up the following URL as
having what is supposed to be the October Working Paper:

    http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-oct95/index.html

-- 
Ajay Kamdar        |    Email: ajay@lehman.com    |    Standard Disclaimer 
Lehman Brothers    |    Phone: (201) 524-5048     |

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]

I have following scenario

class X {

  public:
     int operator [](int);
      ....
      .....
   };

X x;
X * x1=x;

I want to use X.operator[] via x1. That would mean that I will have to use following
syntax:

(*x1)[10] to access 10th element.

However, a more natural way could be to use it like
x1->[10].

Would like your comments on this, or if there are alternatives.

Just for those, who want to know, why I have to use like this is that I am creating
various vector and other objects in the shared memory. Now various processes 
interfacing this can access these objects via pointers interfaces to the shared 
memory. 

Basically, I wanted to use shared memory as program heap, with my own memory 
management. Lot of details are missing from above example, however, if anyone wants,
I can provide them.

Would appreciate your ideas, comments and if any better solutions you have in mind.

Thanks



[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]

In article <461ref$hfr@sake.wwa.com>,
Shashaanka <shashank@sashimi.wwa.com> wrote:

|> X x;
|> X * x1=x;

Firstly, I'll assume you mean:

	X* x1 = &x;

|> However, a more natural way could be to use it like
|> x1->[10].
|> 
|> Would like your comments on this, or if there are alternatives.

I'm not sure I like your proposed syntax but why not use a reference
instead?

	X& x2 = x;
 x2[10];

[shared memory justification snipped]
You could still use references even when pointers would seem natural due to
allocation:

 X& x3 = *new X[10];
 x3[10];   // invoke X::operator[], return int
 (&x3)[9]; // invoke builtin [] on X*, return X&
 delete[] &x3;
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]

>>>>> "S" == Shashaanka  <shashank@sashimi.wwa.com> writes:
[...]
S> X x;
S> X * x1=x;

Are you sure this is correct? Did you intend to write `X* x1 = &x;'
instead?

[...]
S> (*x1)[10] to access 10th element.
S> However, a more natural way could be to use it like
x1-> [10].

S> Would like your comments on this, or if there are alternatives.
[...]

Are you aware of ``references''? E.g., for the code above:
	X& x1 = x;
	// ... x1[10] ... This syntax now available.

	Daveed
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]

In article <45uf98$dqt@jabba.lehman.com>, Ajay Kamdar <ajay@lehman.com> wrote:
>>[Moderator's note: Another WWW site with the draft standard is 
>>http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-draft.  mha]
>
>That URL refers to the April Working Paper -- not the latest draft.

Wrong.  It does reference the latest ANSI Draft for C++.  The other,
is just a working paper, it is not an ANSI draft, nor has it even been
approved by the committee.

>I do not remember seeing any announcement in this forum pointing to
>a newer draft,

Because there is no newer ANSI Draft.

>but a little digging turned up the following URL as having what is
>supposed to be the October Working Paper:
>
>    http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-oct95/index.html

As you'll find out, it is not the October papper, it is the September
working paper.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]

In article <DGo62s.FxK@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump  <mrs@cygnus.com> wrote:
>
>In article <45uf98$dqt@jabba.lehman.com>, Ajay Kamdar <ajay@lehman.com> wrote:
>>>[Moderator's note: Another WWW site with the draft standard is 
>>>http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-draft.  mha]
>>
>>That URL refers to the April Working Paper -- not the latest draft.
>
>Wrong.  It does reference the latest ANSI Draft for C++.  The other,
>is just a working paper, it is not an ANSI draft, nor has it even been
>approved by the committee.

I am sure you are right, but take a look at the April "Draft". It still
has a title in bold letters proclaiming it to be the "April Working Paper",
with following text that reads "The Working Paper ..." leading to
the confusion.

Thanks for setting the matter straight.

>>    http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-oct95/index.html
>
>As you'll find out, it is not the October papper, it is the September
>working paper.

BTW, the URL I referenced above (wp-oct95) doesn't seem to exist anymore.
The new URL for the September working paper is:

    http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-sep95/index.html


-- 
Ajay Kamdar        |    Email: ajay@lehman.com    |    Standard Disclaimer 
Lehman Brothers    |    Phone: (201) 524-5048     |

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]

Mike Stump <mrs@cygnus.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>That URL refers to the April Working Paper -- not the latest draft.
>
>Wrong.  It does reference the latest ANSI Draft for C++.  The other,
>is just a working paper, it is not an ANSI draft, nor has it even been
>approved by the committee.

    Ahem. The document available by FTP is an 
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 Committee Draft. This is
an _international_ forum: ANSI is one of several players.


-- 
John Max Skaller               voice: 61-2-566-2189
81 Glebe Point Rd              fax:   61-2-660-0850
GLEBE NSW 2037                 email: maxtal@suphys.physics.oz.au
AUSTRALIA                      email: skaller@maxtal.com.au




---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]

I forgot the address :-)
	http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/c++std/index.html

--
	dick@csci.csusb.edu=rbotting@wiley.csusb.edu.
Disclaimer:`CSUSB may or may not agree with this message`.
"To err is human, but for a public foul up... post to Usenet."
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]